29051951 Text of the speech made by Mr. Dayal (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 548 held on 29 May 1951
29051951 Text of the speech made by Mr. Dayal (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 548 held on 29 May 1951
Rule 8 of the Security Council's rules of procedure provides that "the provisional agenda for a meeting shall be communicated --at least three days before the meeting", unless the circumstances are urgent, in which case "it may be communicated simultaneously with the notice of the meeting".
There has not been the usual three days' notice in this case, nor can it be said that consideration of documents S/2119 of 4 May 1951 and S/2145 of 10 May 1951 is a matter of urgency, since those documents have been before members of the Council for a considerable time. Nor, indeed, has there been any new development in the situation which was notenvisaged by the Council when this question was extensively discussed in the month of March 1951. Nevertheless, my delegation has raised no objection to the inclusion, at short notice, of this item on the agenda, with the explanation given by the President. The reason for inclusion is that the position of my Government on this matter has already been fully and clearly defined.
Let me recall what Sir Benegal Rau stated to the Council on the subject of the proposed constituent assembly in Kashmir. On 1 March 1951, he said [533rd meeting] :
"The present legal position is that Kashmir—by which I mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir—is the unit of the Indian Federation, subject to federal jurisdiction in respect of the broad categories of defence, external affairs and communications, but completely autonomous in almost all other matters. In the autonomous sphere, the State is entitled to frame its own constitution and, for this purpose, to convince a constituent assembly of its own people. The main purpose of the constituent assembly would be to provide a proper elected legislature for the State of which the executive could be made responsible, as in the British parliamentary system of government, as far as the Government of India is concerned, the constituent assembly is not intended to prejudice the problem before the Security Council, or to come in its way".
Again, on 9 March, the representative of India declosed [ 536th meeting] :
' I shall now turn to a meter which appears to have caused some concern to certain members of the council, namely, the proposal to convene a constituent assembly for Kashmir. As I have already said, Kashmir is at present a unit of the Indian Federation and has to be governed accordingly. When we were drafting a constitution for India, we had to consider what provision should be made for the constitutions of the various units of the Indian Federation. It was decided that the framing of these constitutions should be entrusted to a constituent assembly for the unit concerned. Accordingly, several units convoked constituent assemblies for the purpose— for example, Saurashtra, Travancore Cochin and Mysore, Others lagged behind, for one reason or another. Kashmir is one of the units where a constituent assembly has not yet been convened so that the constitution of the State is still to be made. Members, please note that the machinery of a constituent assembly was not devised only for Kashmir, but for other similar units of the Indian Federation as well. Indeed, if is the recognized machinery for the framing of the constitution in most parts of the world. Accordingly, provision was made in the Indian Constitution for a constituent assembly for settling the details of the Kashmir constitution. Will that assembly decide the question of accession ? My Government's view is that, while the constituent assembly may, if it so desires, express an opinion on this question, it can take no decision on it."
On 29 March 1951, the representative of India stated the following to the Security Council [538th meeting] :
"This brings me to the subject of the constituent assembly, which apparently continues to disturb some of the members of the Council. I have already explained my Government's views on this subject [536th meetings]. Even in a federation, every State has a right to make its own constitution in its own proper sphere and to set up a special body for that purpose. For example, every State constitution now in force in the United States of America was framed in this way. India cannot therefore, prevent Kashmir, which is at present a unit of the Indian Federation, from exercising a similar right, which, indeed, is expressly recognized in the Constitution of India. Some members of the Council appear to fear that in the process the Kashmir constituent assembly might express its opinion on the question of accession. The constituent assembly cannot be physically prevented from expressing its opinion on this question if it so chooses. But his opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council.''
That continues to be the position of my Government, and I reaffirm that so far as the Government of India is concerned, the constituent assembly for Kashmir is not intended to prejudice the issue before the Security Council or to come in its way.
From the statements made by the representative of India on three previous occasions, which I have just quoted, and from my reaffirmation of the position today, it should be obvious that the allegations made in paragraph 3 of the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan- (SJ2119) and in the statement the Council has just heard from the representative of Pakistan, are completely negatived.
That concludes the statement which I have to make, and I reserve the right to reply, if necessary, to any other points that may be brought up in the course of the consideration of this matter by the Council.